ERIC EJ1092161: Statistical Analysis of Cooperative Strategy Compared with Individualistic Strategy: An Application Study

2011·0.1 MB·English

by  ERIC

The Journal of Effective Teaching
an online journal devoted to teaching excellence

Statistical Analysis of Cooperative Strategy
Compared with Individualistic Strategy:
An Application Study

Tawfik A. Saleh1
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abstract

The study investigates the effect of cooperative and individualistic learning strategies on
the academic performance of students in the general chemistry laboratory. The samples
of the study were divided into experimental and control groups. The hypotheses were first
generated and, after collecting data, analyzed by an analysis of t-test at an α = 0.05 level
of significance. The findings revealed that a cooperative learning strategy is more effec-
tive than an individualistic strategy; and, the students in the cooperative group performed
significantly better. The mean difference of the final examination of 6.80, t = 6.10, p =
0.001 indicated that the difference of the results for control group and experimental group
was significant at p<0.05. Students of cooperative groups, at the end of the course, were
given a questionnaire to reflect their perception. Their response was positive toward the
cooperative learning strategy. 90% of the students would like to help, get help and mutu-
ally discuss the labs with their partners. A majority of them were in agreement that
working as a group to conduct an experiment could improve their teamwork skills as
well. This study adds to the global discussion about the role of the University in prepar-
ing students toward teamwork.

Keywords: Cooperative learning, individualistic learning, general chemistry,
laboratory, scholarship of teaching, effective teaching, teamwork.

In pedagogy, educators seek for a learning methodology to teach a specific subject prop-
erly so that students maximize learning. Learning appropriately occurs when students are
actively involved in the construction of their knowledge (Mestre & Cocking, 2002). Gen-
erally, there are three major learning structures: competition learning, independent (indi-
vidualistic) learning, and cooperative learning (Roon, et al., 1983). These three ways of
learning lead to different interaction patterns and thus promote different learning out-
comes. In competition learning, students perceive that they can achieve their goals if
other students fail to do so. In independent learning, the achievement of each student is
unrelated to others; there is no concern about competing for grades since there is an indi-
vidualistic goal structure and student goal achievement is independent. In cooperative
learning, students’ goal achievements are positively correlated. Cooperative learning
(CL) is defined as a technique for helping students to work together in small groups more

1 Corresponding author's email: [email protected]
The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, 19-27
©2011 All rights reserved
Saleh 20
effectively to achieve shared goals with maximum learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).
Johnson and Johnson (1989) have indicated that CL fosters creative thinking such that
students in a group generated new ideas, strategies and solutions which are more power-
ful than those generated in individual learning. Also other studies have pointed out that
CL helps to improve students’ achievement and retention and develop more positive atti-
tudes towards learning skills (Pressel, 1992; Nichols and Miller, 1994). It is more effec-
tive than competitive learning (Kolawole, 2008). Roon used CL groups in a biochemistry
laboratory course for first year students and reported that the faculty were positive about
CL impact (Roon et al., 1983). According to the educational literature related to CL
methods, CL requires six principles. (1) Individual accountability: all students contribute
to know and master the material, learn and share their knowledge and ideas with their
teammates; (2) Positive interdependence: the success of all members in the group is
linked through goals and materials so everybody should understands that his contribution
is important in achieving the shared goals or tasks and others’ understanding; (3) Coop-
eration as a value: students have to know that cooperation is not only a way to learn but it
is a part of the content to be learned; (4) Equal participation: the structure of the goals to
be learned should encourage and promote group members to fairly participate equally; (5)
Simultaneous interaction: to ensure that more than one member is actively engaged at a
time. At least one student gives the idea and the others receive the idea and mutually dis-
cuss it; and (6) Promotive interaction: students can have face to face interaction in at least
part of the task (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Kagan,
1994; Jones & Jones, 2008; Jacobs, Power, & Loh, 2002; Jacobs, 2008). These six ele-
ments are used as a basis for implementing CL in this work due to its solid foundation in
educational research.

This paper describes and statistically analyzes the application of CL as a strategy of in-
troducing general chemistry laboratory to enhance students learning and satisfaction.

Objective of the Study

The purpose of the study includes the comparison of the academic performance of stu-
dents taught with CL strategy and those taught with individualistic learning strategy in
general chemistry laboratory.

Statement of the Problem

Despite its efforts to prepare students for the practice of chemistry, Chemistry depart-
ments confront challenges related to increasing diversity of students’ backgrounds in ba-
sic science and the failure of many students to appreciate the important role of chemistry
in the practice. In addition, many students are impatient with studying basic science be-
cause they are primarily motivated to enter their major of interest and do not perceive the
direct relevance of the science of chemistry to their majors. To make chemistry interest-
ing and to contribute to greater efficiency and effectiveness, a number of innovative ap-
proaches have been used in teaching including cooperative learning and individualistic
learning. Thus, the main problem this study investigates is to determine which of these
The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, 19-27
©2011 All rights reserved
Cooperative Strategy Compared with Individualistic Strategy 21
learning strategies leads to better achievements of the students in the chemistry laboratory
and to what extent do these learning strategies affect the learning outcomes.

Based on this, the author postulated the following question: Will those taught with a co-
operative learning strategy and those taught with an individualistic learning strategy per-
form equally in chemistry laboratory?

Hypotheses

Based on the statement of the problem, the following hypotheses are generated and tested
at an α = 0.05 level of significance:

Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between the academic perform-
ance of students in experimental and control groups taught with individualistic
learning strategy in the first three experiments.

Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between the mean academic per-
formance of students taught with an individualistic learning strategy and those
taught with a cooperative learning strategy during the other 8 experiments.

Methodology

Research Design and Implementation

Both an experimental group and a control group were established for this study. To de-
termine whether there were any statistical differences between the control and experi-
mental groups, an individualized learning strategy was used during the first three experi-
ments for both groups. Then, starting with experiment four, the study was performed by
using CL to teach some sections of students (experimental group) and using individual-
ized learning to teach the other sections (control group). All students are taught the same
experiments using the same materials, have the same facilities, and the same form of
quizzes, assignments and exams. Specifically, the principles of CL were explained to the
students of experimental group and they were instructed and encouraged to function as
units in conducting the experiments, related laboratory concepts, calculations and the re-
porting of the data. On the other hand, the students in th control group were instructed
and encouraged to work individually. Each student had to turn in individual report.

Students’ performance in the laboratory was assessed in three ways: laboratory reports,
quizzes, and a final examination. The laboratory reports included laboratory data and cal-
culations. Uniformity of grading was encouraged by the use of detailed scoring keys. In
laboratory quizzes, only laboratory-related material was included and questions required
single word, sentence, or paragraph answers. At the end of the course, students were ex-
amined practically and theoretically.

The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, 19-27
©2011 All rights reserved
Saleh 22
Variables and Instruments

The independent variable in this study is the learning approach (cooperative learning vs.
individualized learning), and the dependent variables are the students’ achievements as
measured by their report, quizzes and final semester examination scores, and their atti-
tudes and perceptions.

The measuring instruments used in this study consisted of the experiments’ reports,
quizzes and final semester examination. The quizzes were designed to measure the per-
formance of the students. The statistical tools used to analyze the experiments’ reports,
quizzes, and final exam scores in the study were the mean, the standard deviation, and the
student t-test. Students also were asked to fill out a questionnaire to reflect their opinions
and perceptions.

Validity and Reliability of the Instruments

The instruments were validated by content and face-to-face validity methods. For valid-
ity, the instruments were revised with the suggestions of the experts in the field. During
the final week of the semester, some students in the experimental group were randomly
chosen for face-to-face interviews.

Administration of the Instrument

A purposive sampling technique was used to divide the sample into two groups; experi-
mental group taught using comparative learning and the control group taught using indi-
vidualistic learning. In order to ascertain the homogeneity of the treatment groups, the
same work scheme was used in explaining the experiments and introducing the quizzes
and final exam. After treatment, the scores of both groups were collected and subjected to
appropriate statistical analysis. The hypotheses were analyzed by analysis of the t-test at
an α = 0.05 level of significance.

Results and Discussion

Qualitative Findings

The attitudes of students were assessed in two ways: 1) by observation and discussion
with students (face-to-face interviews) and 2) by administration of a written question-
naire. From the students’ responses in the interviews and laboratory observation, most of
them showed a very positive response and expressed that they like the CL method instead
of the individualistic learning method. They welcomed the CL strategy and enjoyed
learning and hoped that the teacher would continue implementing this strategy. It was
observed that the students were motivated to perform better than their previous perform-
ance since they had a chance to mutually discuss the experiment with their partners. In
the students’ opinion questionnaire, administrated at the end of the course, students in the
experimental group were asked to respond to statements about the laboratory taught by
cooperative learning. The results of this questionnaire are presented in Table 1.
The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, 19-27
©2011 All rights reserved
Cooperative Strategy Compared with Individualistic Strategy 23
Table 1: Students’ perception about the application of the strategy.

%
Statement
SA A N D SD
I prefer to work individually to perform the whole ex-
10 15 0 35 40
periment.
I prefer to work cooperatively with teammates to per-
70 20 0 10 0
form the experiment.
I like helping others understanding the content of the
70 20 10 0 0
experiment.
I would like to get help from others understanding the
30 40 10 10 10
content of the experiment.
Working cooperatively increases mutual discussion of
70 20 10 0 0
contents of the experiment with teammates
Working cooperatively improves understanding the
30 50 10 10 0
experiment
Working as a group to conduct an experiment increase
45 45 10 0 0
positive interdependence
Working as a group to conduct an experiment improve
70 20 0 10 0
the teamwork skills
Working as a group to conduct an experiment improve
30 30 20 10 10
my laboratory skills
Working as a group to conduct an experiment make the
60 20 20 0 0
lab more enjoyable and interesting
Ease and speed of the lab improve when we work as a
35 35 10 10 10
group

SA: strongly agree; A: agree; N: neutral; D: disagree; SD: strongly disagree.

In general, the students were positive about the cooperative learning strategy. A majority
of them preferred to work cooperatively, rather than individually, to conduct the experi-
ments. 90% of them did like to help, get help, and mutually discuss the experiments with
their partners. This led to positive interdependence. A majority of them were in agree-
ment that working as a group to conduct an experiment could improve their teamwork
skills.

Quantitative Findings

Hypothesis 1: As illustrated in Table 2, the results show that the control group obtained
80.67 mean score compared to the experimental group which obtained an 80.33 mean
score. The mean difference of 0.34, t = -0.277, P = 0.808 indicated that the difference of
the results between the control group and the experimental group was not significant (p >
0.05). Hence the null hypothesis is accepted at an α = 0.05 level of significance. Thus,
there was no significant difference between both groups when individualistic learning
was used for both groups in the first three experiments (Table 2 & Figure 1). Therefore,
The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, 19-27
©2011 All rights reserved
Saleh 24
Table 2: Statistical analysis of reports’ scores of pre-application of strategy.

Source of
Mean SD t t P Result
variation c t
Experimental
80.67 7.30
group
0.277 1.96 0.808 NSS
Control
80.33 7.40
group
SD: standard deviation; t : student t-test calculated; t : student t-test tabulated; P-value;
c t
NSS: not statistically significant.

Figure 1: Mean experimental grades of students of both experimental and control
groups.

before the study started, both the control and experimental group were not statistically
different. Although the experimental group’s mean score is 0.34 higher than the control
group, the difference is not significant at p < 0.05 level.

Hypothesis 2: Table 3 shows that t-calculated vaue is greater than t-tabulated vaue;
hence, the null hypothesis is rejected at an α = 0.05 level of significance. This means
there is a significant difference between the academic performance of students taught
with cooperative and individualistic learning strategies in favor of cooperative learning
strategy. After the application of the cooperative strategy, the analysis of the results in
The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, 19-27
©2011 All rights reserved
Cooperative Strategy Compared with Individualistic Strategy 25
Table 3: Statistical analysis of reports’ scores of those taught with cooperative and
individualized learning strategy (post-application).

Source of
Mean SD t t P Result
variation c t
Cooperative
89.91 4.90
group
11.63 1.96 7.8 x 10-6 SS
Individulistic
79.75 7.70
group
SD: standard deviation; t : student t-test calculated; t : student t-test tabulated; P-value;
c t
SS: statistically significant.

Table 3 showed that the students taught with cooperative learning strategy performed bet-
ter than those taught with th individualistic learning strategy. The experimental group ob-
tained a higher mean score of 89.91 as compared with the mean of 79.75 for the control
group. The difference between the means scores of both groups is significant. The mean
difference is only 0.34 during th pre-application of the strategy, and it increased to 10.16
after the application of the cooperative strategy (Table 3 & Figure 1).

The statistical analysis of the final semester examination mean scores for both groups
was carried out. The results, as illustrated on Table 4, show that the control group ob-
tained a 78.10 mean score as compared to the experimental group, which obtained an
84.90 mean score. The mean difference of 6.80 with t = 6.10 and P = 0.001 indicates that
the difference between the control group and the experimental group was significant at
p<0.05. The experimental group had higher mean scores than those of the control group,
and the results were statistically significant. Therefore, the learning through a cooperative
strategy had produced positive effects.

Table 4: Statistical analysis of final examination scores.

Source of
Mean SD t t P Result
variation c t
Cooperative
84.90 3.5
group
6.1 1.96 0.001 SS
Individulistic
78.10 6.9
group
SD: standard deviation; t : student t-test calculated; t : student t-test tabulated; P-value;
c t
SS: statistically significant

Conclusion

This study has proven that a cooperative learning strategy is more effective than an indi-
vidualistic learning strategy in teaching the general chemistry laboratory. The advantage
The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, 19-27
©2011 All rights reserved
Saleh 26
of a cooperative learning strategy is not only to teach but also to create and enhance stu-
dents’ motivation, interest, and achievement. This definitely can bring about more effec-
tive learning. The study adds to the global discussion on the effect of the CL to enhance
practical performance and understanding, and thus motivates the interest in the learning
of practical subjects.

Recommendations

Based on the findings, it is hereby recommended that: cooperative learning strategy
should be adopted as an effective learning strategy in order to improve student’s per-
formance, social interaction skills and foster meta-cognition in students. In addition, the
results of this study provide guidelines for further research and are used to create innova-
tive knowledge creation in other fields. The effectiveness of the cooperative learning
strategy is recommended to be studied in other subjects.

References

Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A., & Loh, W. I. (2002). The teacher's sourcebook for coopera-
tive learning: Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently asked questions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jacobs, G., Cooperative Learning: Theory, Principles, And Techniques, JF New Para-
digm Education, Retrieved in 2008, http://www.georgejacobs.net.
Johnson D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Leading the Cooperative School, Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W, Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in
the College Classroom, Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Leading the cooperative school (2nd ed.).
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory
Pract. 38, 1–73.
Jones, K. A., & Jones, J. L. (2008). Making Cooperative Learning Work in the College
Classroom: An Application of the ‘Five Pillars’ of Cooperative Learning to Post-
Secondary Instruction, The Journal of Effective Teaching, 8 (2), 61-76.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publications.
Kolawole, E. B. (2008). Effects of competitive and cooperative learning strategies on
academic performance of Nigerian students in mathematics, Educational Research
and Review 3 (1), 033-037.
Mestre, J., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). Applying the science of learning to the education of
prospective science teachers. In: Learning Science and the Science of Learning: Sci-
ence Educators' Essay Collection, ed. R. W. Bybee, Arlington, VA: National Science
Teachers Association Press.
Nichols, J., & Miller, R. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation. Contempo-
rary Educational Psychology, 19, 167–178.
Pressel, B. E. (1992). A Perspective on the Evolution of Cooperative Thinking, in David-
son and Worksham (Eds). Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learning. NY,
NY; College Teachers Press.
The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, 19-27
©2011 All rights reserved
Cooperative Strategy Compared with Individualistic Strategy 27
Roon, R. J., Van Pilsum, J. F., Harris, I., Rosenberg, P., Johnson, R., Liaw, C., & Rosen-
thal, L. (1983). The experimental use of cooperative learning groups in a biochemis-
try laboratory course for first-year medical students, Biochemical Education 11 (1),
12-15.
The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, 19-27
©2011 All rights reserved